Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

the total amount of interest, &o., 9,6817. 18. 3d. The number of members at the first yearly meeting was 269, who had taken up 480 and a half shares; and the largest number of shares shown by one annual report was 499.

[In our next issue will be given "Our Co-operative Guide." We wish to impress upon all Co-operative Societies the necessity of sending us their latest statement, addressed to the Editor of the Working Man, 335, Strand, London, so that a faithful report of Cooperative strength may be given every quarter.]

CORRESPONDENCE.

SOCIALISM ON THE DEFENSIVE.

SIR,It is with a deep sense of regret, but under a very clear and imperious sense of duty, that I beg to enter my protest against an allusion made by Mazzini, in his last address to the operatives of Parma, to "the systems advocated among foreigners, which violaté property, the. source of all emulation, liberty, and labour."

What are the systems Mazzini had in view when he penned that unlucky sentence? was it Owenism, or Fourierism, or Communism, or any other social ism? There is really something both distressing and provoking in the persistance with which men will attribute to others what they themselves consider as wrong and perverse ideas. Of all men, Mazzini ought to be the last in doing so; for he well knows, and by personal experience, what it is to be misrepresented, slandered, and calumniated. Now, does he think that out of personal regard or consideration for his many virtues, one can submit to hear mankind reproached with faults that no philosophical or political school in the whole world has ever been guilty of? If so, Mazzini is greatly mistaken, and I, for one, feel bound in duty to exclaim on this subject

"Amicus Mazzini, magis amica veritas !”

I wonder whether our illustrious friend has ever read Holyoake's "History of Co-operation in Rochdale." If he has not, I will beg permission to call his attention to the following extracts :

"Ebenezer Elliott's epigram, which he once repeated as an argument to the present writer, pointed to doctrines that certainly never existed in England :"What is a communist? One who hath yearnings For equal division of unequal earnings;

Idler or bungler, or both, he is willing

To fork out his penny, and pocket your shilling.'

"The English working class have no weakness in the way of idleness; they never become dangerous until they have nothing to do. Their revolutionary cry is always 'More work!' They never ask for bread half so eagerly as they ask for employment. Communists in England were never either 'idlers or bunglers When the Bishop of Exeter troubled Parliament, in 1840, with a motion for the suppression of socialism, an inquiry was sent to the police authorities of the principal towns as to the character of the persons holding those opinions (the same who built in Manchester the Hall of Science, now the Free Library, at an expense of from £6,000 to £7,000). The answer was, that those persons consisted of the most skilled, well conducted, and intelligent of the working class."

"The followers of Mr. Owen were never the idlers,' but the philanthropic. They might be dreamers, but they were not knaves. They protested against competition as leading to immorality. Their objections to it were theoretically acquired. They were none of them afraid at competition, for out of the Socialists of 1840 have proceeded the most enterprising emigrants and the most spirited men of business who have risen from the working classes. The world is dotted with them at the present hour, and the history of the Rochdale

Pioneers is another proof that they were not' bunglers.' No popular movement in England ever produced so many persons able to take care of themselves as the agitators of Social Reform. Moreover, the pages of the "New Moral World" and the "Northern Star" of this period amply testify that the Social Reformers were opposed to 'strikes,' as an untutored and often frantic method of industrial rectification; as wanting foresight, calculation, and fitness; as an irritation, a waste of money and temper, &c."

Though I have been obliged to shorten the quoted passages for want of space, I may, I think, so far at least as England is concerned, leave Mazzini with his and our friend Holyoake's book, and take for granted that no more in England than Italy have Socialists or Communists ever been "idlers or bunglers." have they been anywhere else? I dare any one and every one to prove it.

But

True it is, that, far from admitting, with Mazzini, that property is the source of labour,' many thinkers contend, and rightly I think, that labour is, or rather ought to be, the source, and the only source of property; but property understood as the right of the producer to the plus value given to the raw material on which his labour has been spent, has always and most anxiously been upheld as a sacred right, not only by English, but by French, German, and, in fact, all Socialists, the Italian included. So that whether you inquire into the theories or the practice, whether you appeal to the writings of the masters or the deeds of the disciples, never will you find among them anyone to whom Ebenezer Elliott's epigram or Mazzini's criticism can apply. The workmen of France are no more idlers or bunglers" than those of England or Italy, Germany or Spain, Russia or America; and the friends, the good and true men who advised and will continue to advise them in that long and dreary struggle of labour versus capital, far from willing to "fork out their penny and pocket anyone's shilling," do exactly what Mazzini and his friends have done for Italy-they give to the cause they have espoused, not only their penny, but their soul, their fortune, their liberty, their life.

When will these evil insinuations cease? what good can they do?

When we hear certain writers-J. Ruskin, for instance-affirm that "Socialists desire to make everybody poor, powerless, and foolish as they are themselves; "'* or Lord Brougham venture-not without a prudent "it appears manifest"-that "" Co-operation is not only distinct from Communism or Socialism, but repugnant to it; "+ or W. Chambers boldly assert that "Cooperation in no shape resembles the whimsical schemes of Owen and Fourier,”‡ at the very moment when the distribution of profits is ruled in Co-operative societies by Fourier's law of repartition, according to capital, labour, and talent; when, I repeat, we hear all this nonsense authoritatively put forth by men who may be very learned and very clever, but, as far as Socialism is concerned, are as ignorant as fishes, we laugh, and repeat, with a slight variation, the Divine prayer, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they say." But when it is such men as Mazzini that we hear disparagingly speak of the cause to which our life, now and for ever, belongs, we no longer feel inclined to laugh, but rather to cry, for the sting is the sharpest and the wound the keenest coming from such a quarter.

Had Mazzini meant to allude to the Imperial systems of Austria or Russia, or to that other Imperial system lately advocated at the Paris Bourse by the stockjobbers who wanted to raise a statue to Napoleon III. for having overdrawn the resources of France by only one or two billions, and so far proclaimed Liberty and Equality in France as to open the lists of the Bourse to all comers, and give to everyone the right of ruining himself or his neighbour at public gambling,I would, of course, withdraw my protest, and offer my apology to Mazzini for

*See the "Cornhill Magazine," p. 560, No. II., Nov., 1860.

† See Chambers's Social Science Tracts, No. I., p. 1. #Ibid.

having put the wrong construction on his words. But I am afraid this is not the case; and, with all the respect I owe to the man and the cause he defends, I cannot help bitterly deploring a kind of language which it would be desirable for all of us to avoid, as it can have no other effect than to keep up deplorable prejudices and alienate from each other, men, who, after all, are the advocates of one and the same cause, the cause of Justice and Truth. A. T.

(To the Editor of the "Working Man.")

CO-OPERATION.

DEAR SIR,-I have not yet seen a number of your new series of this, the most useful of all, co-operative publications, nor was I aware it had appeared until the other day; however, I will obtain a copy. But why, oh, why, do newsagents attempt the suppression of such champions of labour? As usual, they will not sell it. No matter; only let the fact be known to create other means for its circulation. I am amongst those who have been both hooted and knocked down for denouncing competition, but still I contend that, if you wish to enjoy heaven upon earth, you must have co-operation; and those who prefer hell, and plenty of it, cannot do better than hug the chains of slavery, and " enjoy," if they can, competition. There may be a "joy" in it, as there is in other kinds of madness; but, if so, it is a “joy " which would give any beholder the horrors; for there would be more hope in sorrow. As ever, yours for co-operation, no matter in how humble a way, the most humble being often the most loving, H. D. GRIFFiths.

10, Bulstrode-street, Manchester-square.

(To the Editor of the " Working Man.")

SOCIAL REFORM IN AMERICA.

SIR,-I seize the first fitting opportunity to reply to your respected courtesies and attentions, for which I feel so much obliged. Your letters, and the papers you have sent, were exceedingly interesting to me, as, of course, they must of necessity be. Like you, I dare not trust my head an inch beyond my hands and feet (i.e., I dare not trust any untried theory); nor does it seem very profitable for other people to attempt it. When, in 1827, I first conceived the principles of Equity, and designed to illustrate them by the working of a family store, I talked incessantly for six weeks to my most sympathising friends in order to get them to appreciate the subject, and to assist me in working it out; but the whole of that labour was entirely thrown away; but as soon as I commenced the store single-handed-INDIVIDUALLY-it explained itself, and more than itself. The working of it-the facts of it-explained the principle of Equity as no words could; and I saw that it was the incompetency of language that had neutralised all my efforts at theorising. Precisely the same thing occurred previously to starting the same kind of store in New Harmony in 1842. The working of the store itself was the only thing that preserved one from being set down as an insane visionary. But you may judge something of its practical effects by a remark of Robert Dale Owen, who (though he did not understand the principles) said, "There is no disputing that you have produced a great revolution in the country." The thing looks ludicrous enough when I ask myself how long I should have had to talk or write before the same results would have been attained by theory alone! You may wonder what I am coming to, or driving at. It is this. I said, on reading your articles in the Working Man, "Glorious, hearty fellows! they will do all that can be done by words; but I hope they will not expect too much from them, and be disappointed, and become discouraged." After all, words have had their day, and done all they

can do; there is a power in simple facts that as far transcends them as the hurricane transcends in power the breathing of a child. I have been on this ground ten years, and have, on all occasions (which I thought demanded it), applied and shown up the principles for which the place was laid out, yet, I really believe that they are better understood in Boston, in New York City, and elsewhere, where I have never been, than they are here, and, perhaps, it is fortunate for them that I am not in London! Notwithstanding the almost imperceptible progress of our subject theoretically, the fact that the place is still in existence that it has not been annihilated by abuse and misrepresentationis a fact of great power. It brings to us many persons who are enquiring and looking for something better than they find around them; and others at a distance have their eyes turned this way, ready to see anything that may be developed worth seeing. Now, all we have to do is to do! The great question is What can we do with so few in number? What we cannot do would be too long a list to write.

Long Island, New York.

(To the Editor of the "Working Man.")

J. W.

SIR, I have been an occasional purchaser of the Working Man, but, from its non-appearance at the newspaper shops, I have not been able to obtain it regularly. Seeing, however, you were about to publish it in the form of a magazine, I made it my business to obtain the first number in its new shape from your agent, Mr. Campbell. Now, sir, having read its contents carefully through, I must say I was particularly struck with the good sense and strong argumentative language used by your various correspondents in support of our social position as working men. I am happy to find so many of my toiling brethren able to wield the only weapon (the pen), which, if used honestly, will materially aid them to win their emancipation, if followed up by the hearty co-operation of the wealth-producers of this country. I believe the only thing that is necessary to remove the cloak of ignorance, which has been cast upon us by the tyranny and wickedness of those who profess to teach us better things is the intelligent use of the pen among ourselves. Now, sir, that you are about to begin the publication of a novel in your pages, there arose a doubt in my mind as to whether this novel would be interesting to the majority of the readers of the Working Man. The readers of the Working Man will, I trust, look for something more substantial than mere romance. What are the teachings of the numerous weekly journals and periodicals which have sprung into existence since the abolition of the paper duty? Are they doing anything towards educating and enlightening the minds of the operatives of our manufacturing cities and towns, who are the chief purchasers of this class of literature? No; but the contrary to this is the fact; they do a great deal of evil. In the first place, it is a waste of time which cannot be recalled; and, secondly, they create idleness and a false pride, by seducing the mind and fastening it upon the allabsorbing subject of romance. I know young men who spend all their leisure hours (Sunday included) in reading them, and the result is they are living in total ignorance of the Divine Being who created them, and also of anything being done by their fellow-men to emancipate them from this besetting sin. Now, sir, in order to make the Working Man worthy of a place in every cottage library, its pages must be free from everything but that which will instruct and enlighten the honest toilers of our crowded cities and towns. And now, Mr. Editor, if this should meet your approbation, its insertion in the Working Man, to which I wish every success, will oblige Yours respectfully,

Hulme, Manchester, 1862.

AN ANTI-NOVELIST.

THE AMERICAN LABOUR QUESTION.

(From our own correspondent.)

BEGINNING with the declaration, that all men are created equal in natural rights, it makes a subject of useful enquiry how a Government, avowedly made for Freedom, was broken up by the power of Slavery.

Passing over the distinctive characters of the men who respectively peopled the Northern and Southern States; passing over the external circumstances that increased the divergence of their characters; passing over the motive power which impelled the Revolution of 1775 among the Eastern States, and which opposed it in the Southern, we come to the day of the Declaration of Independence, the culminating glory of the struggle for freedom, and the spirit which gave it light and secured to it success. That Declaration was the work of earnest men; in fact, though not in form, it was the work of persons upon whose individual responsibility rested the enunciation of a truth that they might secure a cause. Jefferson wrote it, Franklin mainly corrected the rough draft, and it was adopted by the Continental Congress, without hardly an alteration, as thus presented. This explains why the Declaration of Independence is so masterly a document; how the universality of its application grew out of the oneness of its conception; and how its individuality of birth was necessitated by its universality-the end being in the beginning; for no man can enunciate half a truth, nor a congress of men, as a congress, patch together pieces of one great truth. The thing has been tried again and again, and been a failure. The entire conception must lay in one mind before it can be spoken in the words which give it currency. The elements lay about, that is the universality; and the all-in-one, the great chord of universal harmony. The Declaration, then, was the standard for a new people; it was raised by the brain and heart of the country; and in the moment of its enunciation it was received with acclaim as the great needful of the people who were waiting for it.

Passing later, comes the making of the Constitution of 1787. Here began a retrogression. The Constitution was an attempt to bring the Declaration into a practical shape for the governing of states; but the very effort to realize it was to set it aside as a motive power, and leave it as a tradition, to be handed down from generation to generation, till the day of education should come when its teachings became the knowledge of the people, instead of their profession. It is one thing to admit a truth, but quite another to practice it. The Constitution was made, ostensibly, for the regulation of a continent consisting of individual states, in some of which the most antagonistic needs were developed; it, therefore, tried to reconcile these conflicting interests; but, in practice, it had to give the preference to one interest or the other: in this case Freedom or Slavery. The making of the Constitution was no longer the work of industrial men; in fact, though not in form, it was the work of states pitted in conflict, each moving with all energy to secure its own-and more, if possible. The result was a concession of principle on one side, and a supposed concession of privileges upon the other, which pleased neither party. There was no unity of design, for it was not the work of a unity of interests, or even a unity of feeling; and the proof of it is in the debates of the Convention, which nearly resulted in a disruption full of bitterness.

In that Convention, upon the question of imposing a tax upon the importation of slaves, Mr. Routledge, of South Carolina, said: "The true question at present is-Whether Southern States shall or shall not become parties to the Union;" and, in the heat of the discussion, Mr. Pinckney, of the same State, with more boldness, said: "South Carolina can never receive this plan (of the Constitution) if it prohibits the slave trade." So the slave trade was protected for twenty years, and the Fugitive Slave clause of the Constitution adopted. With such beginning for union, the result could only be that the conceding party gave away its power, and the secret of the wonderful unity of the Southern States is revealed: their policy was made the active ruling power.

(To be continued.)

« НазадПродовжити »